John Allen har som vanlig en god og presis analyse av stridssp\u00f8rsm\u00e5l innen Kiriken; i debatten om det var dokumentene Vatikankonsilet produserte eller bare den senere fortolkningen av dem som er problemet, plasserer han pave Benedikt midt i sentrum av debatten – med en balansert forst\u00e5else:<\/p>\n
…. When it comes to interpretations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), some progressive Catholics are tempted to see Pope Benedict XVI\u2019s \u201chermeneutic of reform,\u201d <\/strong>which stresses continuity with the pre-Vatican II church, as the opposite end of the spectrum from more liberal views. That\u2019s not, however, how most people in the Vatican size things up, where the \u201chermeneutic of reform\u201d is instead understood as a balanced position between thinking that church history began with Vatican II, and thinking that the council was just plain wrong.<\/strong><\/p>\n
For that taxonomy to work, there have to be credible exponents of the \u201cjust plain wrong\u201d position. That\u2019s where Italian historian Roberto de Mattei and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a canon of St. Peter\u2019s Basilica, enter the picture.<\/p>\n
Both have published provocative books about Vatican II. Last year, de Mattei offered Il Concilio Vaticano II: Una storia mai scritta (\u201cThe Second Vatican Council: A Story Never Told\u201d), styling Vatican II as a rupture with tradition comparable to the French Revolution, and faulting every pope since Pius X for allowing it to happen. Gherardini produced Concilio Vaticano II: Il discorso mancato (\u201cThe Second Vatican Council: The Missing Discussion\u201d), in which he said some council fathers believed \u201cthe church was to be a kind of research laboratory rather than a dispenser of truths from on high.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both books were recently reviewed in L\u2019Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, and in both cases the verdict was fairly negative.<\/strong> The commentary on de Mattei came from Italian Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, author of a study of the council openly critical of the more liberal \u201cBologna school\u201d associated with Italian scholars Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni. Marchetto wrote that de Mattei\u2019s work is \u201cideological\u201d and suffers from \u201cextremist tendencies.\u201d Likewise, Inos Biffi, a medieval expert and a frequent writer for L\u2019Osservatore, charged that Gherardini doesn\u2019t so much \u201cdiscuss\u201d Vatican II as \u201cdenigrate\u201d it.<\/p>\n
The dividing line is this: If the post-Vatican II period brought some confusion and excess, is that the fault of the council itself? Benedict XVI, and figures in sync with his views such as Marchetto and Biffi, say no; traditionalist critics such as de Mattei and Gherardini say yes.<\/p>\n
All this illustrates a core insight about the Catholic Church: Deciding who the moderates are depends on the range of views one takes into consideration. When you see the whole picture, it\u2019s often tougher to conclude that the Vatican, or the pope, represents an extreme. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n